Attorneys for Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán Loera will file a motion later this month for a new trial on the basis of rampant juror misconduct exposed by Vice reporter Keegan Hamilton. The motion should be granted following the revelation that the jury persistently read media reports of the most sensational drug trial American history while it was happening. Unless Hamilton's accounts of his exclusive interview with a panelist was inaccurate, Guzmán did not receive anything resembling a fair trial.
Two terms ago, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a conviction on the grounds of racial bias because during deliberations a juror opined, "I think he did it because he's Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want." Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his introduction to the decision, eloquently penned, "Like all human institutions, the jury system has its flaws, yet experience shows that fair and impartial verdicts can be reached if the jury follows the court's instructions and are honest." The juror who contacted Vice conceded blatant dishonesty as well as the panel's inability to follow the most basic directives.
The mandate to avoid following news accounts is given in every trial but is paramount in high-profile cases because the media reports an array of prejudicial information that judges rightfully withhold from consideration. It is one of the few trial rules most of the public knows. Here, the recalcitrant juror admitted following Vice's frequent trial updates and claimed that about half the panel did as well. Additionally, the juror kept his handwritten notes, in violation of the judge's orders. His motive was likely self-serving, given his quotes in Vice that "We should have our own reality TV show, like the jurors on MTV" and "This is the case of the century. Do I want to live it…or do I want to watch it on the screen?"
The most egregious violation came on the eve of deliberations after the media successfully petitioned the court to release documents that described prosecution witness Alex Cifuentes alleging Guzmán sexually assaulted teenagers. When Judge Brian Cogan asked jurors if they were aware of the salacious material, the juror lied and conceded giving a tutorial to his fellow members on how to answer the judge with a "straight face" when making an untruthful denial. The juror told Vice he was worried there could be consequences for such a breach during the trial, but obviously felt that once it was over, whatever jurors did during the trial no longer mattered. Anyone with respect for fairness in our judicial system knows that's not true.
A citizen who views jury service as the duty and privilege it is would have informed the judge about exposure to any media accounts, how it happened and whether it affected their ability to fairly assess the case. Federal authorities, from Congress to enforcement agents, demand truth, under pain of prosecution, from witnesses and those under investigation. There should be no carve-out for federal jurors to act dishonestly and with impunity, especially so when a person's life in solitary confinement is at stake.
In the Second Circuit, where Guzmán was tried, a premium is placed on a juror's obligation to follow the law. In Grady Thomas v. U.S.A., esteemed jurist Jose Cabranes wrote that a juror will not be permitted to serve who "is determined to ignore his duty, who refuses to follow the court's instructions on the law and who thus threatens to undermine the impartial determination of justice." While Grady dealt with a juror dismissed before deliberations, the principle was meant to guide Circuit practice and highlight how completely disregarding a court's instructions is antithetical to the administration of justice.
For wise policy reasons, it is a challenge to pierce the veil into a jury's deliberative process. Yet the inquiry with Guzmán's jurors' need not go far as in no previous case has a panelist rushed to video chat with a news organization to concede continuous misconduct. One juror reportedly took an admonition of the judge to refrain from following a story about Guzmán's lead attorney having an affair with a popular restaurateur as a cue to read about it, minutes later, on a smartwatch.
The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial is the highlight of American jurisprudence. In a case where the eyes of the world are on our judicial system, the abstract notion of justice has become concrete. Justice calls for a correction to the trial court's inability to vet jurors and monitor their adherence to traditional and needed instructions. Simply, every defendant is owed a panel that can be trusted to decide guilt from solely the evidence presented.
Sean Roman Strockyj is an opinion writer based in Queens.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario